Gene Kwiecinski wrote: > Which is kind of the point. If a provider doesn't impose at least > minimally-intrusive measures to prevent spamming (eg, maximum of N > emails sent per hour, progressively slowing to a crawl with increasing > volume, etc.), ie, things which wouldn't affect you or me no matter how > prolific we are in emailing, but which would cripple spammers (eg, do I > personally need to send 1000 emails in one shot?), then quite frankly, > if someone *does* abuse it, the provider can't cry foul that they're > blameless victims.
There is hardly any ISP that likes to have a spammer use their system. If it happens it's mostly because the spammer was slightly smarter than the system that the ISP has setup. And anyway, ISPs are the maintainers of the infrastructure. Do you blame the mailman for bringing you something you don't like? > If SORBS would pocket their "fines", that's one thing, but as they > explicitly don't want to be connected with any charities they approve of > in their list, that to me seems to be on the up-and-up. Have Bram ask > SORBS to include among the list of approved charities those that assist > Ugandans and Ethernopians and whatnot. Let some good come out of > spammers' eee-vil actions, and the providers who unwittingly abet them. I will certainly not be part of this blackmail system. > To use an analogy, if I leave a loaded gun or samurai sword or > something, out on my front lawn, and some idiot kid goes and hurts or > even kills someone with it, can I insist that I'm blameless in the > matter? Or should I instead bear some of the blame for my recklessness? Such comparisons are too different to be useful in this discussion. Your sword could hardly be there for a useful reason. Email systems are very useful and are generally used for good purpose. > The more I think about it, the more I gotta agree with SORBS, that if > some provider did something to trigger being blacklisted, they *should* > in fact have to pay. Maybe next time they'd look a little more closely > at their clientele. If you want a waiver to send more than N emails/day > (eg, for a mailing list), let the provider at least look into the > content and make sure you're not hawking V1AAgrA or fake R0L3X watches > or whatnot. Obviously spam is very annoying. The problem with this sorbs system is that innocent people get hurt and find it very hard to get out. And the spammers will quickly find a way around it. In the end it hardly helps in the fight against spam and lots of people get annoyed. > All that being said, did your provider (the Z-thing?) explain *why* it > may've gotten blacklisted in the first place? I'd look into that first. > <shrug/> Mostly finding out why it happened is too difficult for someone who isn't skilled in this area. Most people will have to turn to their help desk (which often costs money and at least time). I have asked the Vim maillist maintainers to remove this blacklist mechanism. It is not reliable. -- If Microsoft would build a car... ... You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
